Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Microsoft Tries to Devour "Open Source", Barracuda Wants Sourcefire

Hash: SHA1

Killing With Kindness

,----[ Quote ]
| All of this [Microsoft] "openness" has two objectives: in the short term, it 
| could convince the European Union regulators to back off their 
| anti-competitive investigations of Microsoft. Long term, if played with 
| enough sincerity, customers might actually believe what I am sure is the 
| coming retcon from Microsoft: that they've always been an open source company 
| at heart--in fact, they are the model for all other open source companies. 
| Nutty? Just you wait.      
| No matter how the message is delivered--whether you prefer BN, LT, or some 
| other outlet, I believe we can agree that there is strong evidence of a slow 
| collaborative effort from Redmond to co-opt "open source" as a concept. If 
| that can actually be accomplished, one of Linux' biggest advantages could be 
| rendered moot--if not in truth, then at least in marketing. And in business, 
| sometimes marketing is all you need.      


Sourcefire Says No to Barracuda's Takeover Bid

,----[ Quote ]
| Open-source security software maker Sourcefire has rejected a US$186 million 
| unsolicited takeover offer from Barracuda Networks. 



Is Microsoft Hijacking Open Source?

,----[ Quote ]
| What really worries me is what looks like an emerging pattern in Microsoft's 
| behaviour. The EU agreement is perhaps the first fruit of this, but I predict 
| it will not be the last. What is happening is that Microsoft is effectively 
| being allowed to define the meaning of “open source” as it wishes, not as 
| everyone else understands the term. For example, in the pledge quoted above, 
| an open source project is “not commercially distributed by its 
| participants” - and this is a distinction also made by Kroes and her FAQ.      
| In this context, the recent approval of two Microsoft licences as 
| officially “open source” is only going to make things worse. Although I felt 
| this was the right decision – to have ad hoc rules just because it's 
| Microsoft would damage the open source process - I also believe it's going to 
| prove a problem. After all, it means that Microsoft can rightfully point to 
| its OSI-approved licences as proof that open source and Microsoft no longer 
| stand in opposition to each other. This alone is likely to perplex people who 
| thought they understood what open source meant.       
| [...]
| What we are seeing here are a series of major assaults on different but 
| related fields – open source, open file formats and open standards. All are 
| directed to one goal: the hijacking of the very concept of openness. If we 
| are to stop this inner corrosion, we must point out whenever we see wilful 
| misuse and lazy misunderstandings of the term, and we must strive to make the  
| real state of affairs quite clear. If we don't, then core concepts like “open 
| source” will be massaged, kneaded and pummelled into uselessness.     


Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index